I’ve lost a lot of respect for Michael Lewis as a consequence of his seemingly deep sympathy for SBF. SBF is an arrogant, narcissist criminal who deserves every day he serves.

Bankman-Fried’s favorite philsophy, Utilitarianism, is featured a little bit in “Hard Times,” by Dickens … and includes a word of warning from Dickens to utilitarians!:”Utilitarian economists … the poor you will have always with you. Cultivate in them, while there is yet time, the utmost graces of the fancies and affections, to adorn their lives so much in need of ornament; or, in the day of your triumph, when romance is utterly driven out of their souls, and they and a bare existence stand face to face, Reality will take a wolfish turn, and make an end of you.”

This is a compelling story and very well told. Five stars on this one.

That he immediately pushes back and interjects against anyone who thinks differently than him.

Gave this season a shot. Hard to listen to.

Michael Lewis is terrific. Probably my favorite writer and podcaster. That said, Gladwell has ruined all Pushkin pods by caring only about ad money. Years ago, the Pushkin pods were spectacular. Making money is great, but focusing solely on short-term profits is deplorable. On a recent 11 minute podcast, there were 6 minutes of ads….not a typo, 6 minutes of ads in an 11 minute pod. Add to that a few of Gladwells full episodes that are just commercials for T Mobile. Paying the bills and profiting is one thing. Selling your integrity is quite another.

GREAT JOB! YOU ALL ARE DOING AMAZING WORK!

Only bummed I didn’t discover this sooner. Big Pushkin fan and even bigger M. Lewis fan. Absolutely loved the BTS and real life interviews and insights of such a game changing book. Didn’t know Liars Poker was such a big deal. I, too left a life of Wall Street for something else.

I once loved this podcast. Michael Lewis and the team did a great job for three seasons. This fourth however is pretty much unlistenable. A decent portion of the blame falls on the new reporter whose voice is a challenge and writing weak, but also the overall composition of the whole season feels sloppy. Seems like Pushkin’s more focused on commercials than content these days.

Ms Kott has a voice that I find intolerable - I simply cannot listen to her.

I love the SBF season, Lydia J Cott is a star!

I get that this is a business and you need to raise revenue, but this was ridiculous. After all, you’re already saving money by having your fourteen year old baby-sitter act as the court reporter. Love the writer, but this season was not good.

This is so oddly pro Sam Bankman, non stop downplaying and justifying his crimes. “The money was just not where it was supposed to be” and calling Sam a genius? Not sure how you are all drinking that kool aid unless this is Lewis’s attempt at avoiding culpability for hanging out with Sam as he committed all these crimes.

Book was fascinating storytelling as always. The trial series is the perfect sequel. We know what Michael Lewis is capable of, but how about that Lydia. Definitely not out of central casting for a talking head, which is refreshing. In addition, she is intelligent and sounds so sweet and innocent how could you not trust her. She asks insightful questions from an audience perspective with einstinian curiosity and innocence.

This season featured the impulsive reactions of four, five, six? people to the federal criminal trial proceedings in a highly publicized case. I’m not sure why this was turned into a podcast; I’d venture to guess that it was for ratings, primarily. But it was rushed, not well understood by anyone except the prosecutor-turned-criminal-defense-lawyer and jury consultant guests, and presented arguably unprofessionally by everyone in the Pushkin team. The first question was why Michael delegated it to someone else. Perhaps he was working on a separate project or had to tend to something of bigger importance—more power to him. But with a large number of media publishers also covering it, we weren’t wanting of more opinions; especially ones that gave priority to color commentary. But what disappointment me most was what he had to say. It’s been widely reported that his book received bad press for choosing to reserve judgment while presenting the facts of the rise and fall of FTX as he observed it and as they presented themselves to him. But upon his return, after SBF took the stand, it seemed like his reservation was starting to wear off. What was most egregious and unprofessional was how he kept comparing what he wrote to what was being said at trial, and disapproving constantly, in a national, well-circulated podcast released well before jury deliberations. Even in a case as clear and one-sided as this, for Pushkin to release his commentary and opinions in a manner accessible to the Jury before the Jury concluded deliberations was extremely disconcerting. Everything else discussed about the case was of very little substance. I’m disillusioned with this Pushkin team. No one needed to make a podcast about their takes on the trial proceedings, even Michael Lewis.

This podcast really tarnishes a great writer I’ve long enjoyed. Michael Lewis seems unable to recognize Sam Bankman Fried is both not a genius and little more than a scam artist. This podcast comes off very very poorly.

This review is specifically about Season 4, Judging Sam. It’s unfortunate that Lidia Jean is only credited as “court reporter” because honestly she did a fantastic job covering the trial, conveying both the facts but also the sentiment and nuance of the proceedings. They should have just made her the host and let her run with it. The weakest episodes were actually when Michael Lewis was in court, in which he took a “no facts, just vibes” approach to reporting.

I’ve listened to thousands of hours worth of podcasts, and Lidia Jean Kott’s talent for asking the most amazing questions is incredible. She not only asks what I wish she did, she also asks what I wish I had thought of asking. Her instincts as a reporter are so good, Michael Lewis is lucky to have her on this podcast. Pushkin should give her her own show!!

Hard to find the actual show amongst all the ads.

This podcast is fantastic. Lidia Jean Kott is a national treasure. Protect her at all costs.

Oh I think people are being very unfair to Lydia due to her voice when in reality she’s actually excellent, knows the case very well and gives very good recaps. The issue I have is how ridiculous Michael Lewis comes across as almost a Sam apologist. It’s actually embarrassing to hear Lewis continually thinking he’s coming up with good points in the defense of Sam when in reality he’s really making a fool of himself and losing fans such as myself

Borderline unlistenable. Without the first person singular pronoun these people couldn’t compose a sentence. It’s a real trick to start with a complex fascinating story and leave the listener bored. And the ads! Interminable. I’ll never buy anything advertised on this podcast. If Pushkin thinks they’re pushing us to subscribe by hurting us, they’re wrong. The effect is to avoid anything Pushkin.

Worst podcast ever. Michael, stick to writing books. Bonus episode on financial planning was an embarrassment. You seem to have thing for career woman, usually intelligent of a certain age who really are not suited for communicating in podcast. You’ve made plenty of money, and will make more. Stay in your wheelhouse - trying to expand up our pitching repertoire will shorten your big league career.

Interesting content but impossible to get through & enjoy with “LJ” as a major host. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a worse voice on a podcast. She’s uneducated & juvenile on top of it. I agree with another commenter that she treats the trial like a HS field trip. If she’s a journalist than I’m an astronaut. Sorry, but someone really dropped the ball here thinking she was a good idea. She needs a different career.

The host’s childish voice makes this podcast unlistenable. She needs some voice training.

Late to the party and only started this pod a few days ago. Overall I find it engaging and informative on a subject I haven’t had a chance to learn much about - Sam’s story. My only criticism is- sorry!- using Lidia to report; her voice and mannerisms convey a lack of confidence and the communication skills of a teen who uses baby talk. I have dear personal friends with odd speech affectations and know that people speak how they speak but I would never encourage them to do a big national podcast.

I was surprised to see first comment praising narrator’s fresh enthusiastic voice. I guess I am stale and dull, but I have trouble getting past the voice to get to the meaning. The story is interesting though.

Lewis isn’t a big part of the podcast, but when he *is* on he comes across as slightly arrogant and as an SBF apologist. To hear him say SBF’s parents don’t deserve this and he hopes that the press/law leave them alone is 🤯. SBF wasn’t created/enabled in a vacuum. Not that they should go to jail, but come on—their involvement isn’t nothing.

There are some solid pieces of analysis, here, however, it’s hard to get past Michael Lewis, worshiping Sam Bankman-Fried. He’s completely blind to some of the wrongdoings, including his parents. Felt very biased.

Where is your full response and reaction to the verdict? Don’t leave us hanging.

Michael Lewis is great but regrettably absent from most of this podcast. The problem is the host. If someone can be said to have a voice made for sign language she does. Horrible.

…has the right voice for a podcast. Lydia Jean’s voice is like nails on a chalkboard. Cringe worthy.

Poor audio quality. Not much analysis or insight. Michael Lewis was on book tour and so others filled in.

SBF trial covered by Michael Lewis and an acolyte. Lewis is still in awe of his subject and there is no breaking him out of his spell. Lewis and host never take what SBF was accused of a serious or consequential matter. It’s all about moves, theory, explanation…

This podcast drives me nuts. The actual info on the SBF trial is so interesting and I love those parts. But it feels like it’s half ads, and the reporters voice is so juvenile and up talking it makes it very hard to listen, especially in taped phone calls.

Enjoying her enthusiastic fresh smart voice.

This is among the strangest podcasts I’ve ever encountered. The tone is utterly cringe. LJ treats the trial like a high school field trip. So much secondhand embarrassment listening to her talk about her court friends. In her defense, she’s clearly very young and needed more guidance than she was given. Michael Lewis feels like an artifact from another era. He doesn’t seem to have much of a grasp on the underlying legal issues, preferring to frame the trial as just another fun setting in which to see his favorite character exist. It’s all so strange. And sad. The entire podcast has this weird, manically under-produced energy that is only compounded by the endless online casino ads.

A clear cash grab, with by far the highest ratio of ads to content I’ve ever encountered. Michael Lewis should be ashamed to be so duped, and continue to run propaganda, for a phony. If Lewis had credibility, he should has scrapped the book once it became clear that he only had 20% of the story and was being used as a stooge.

Great work Michael and LJ. Your insights to the trial and its goings on were great to hear from “the inside”. Looking forward to hearing more. P.S. Your book was a great read too.

Great reporting! Thank you for standing in line and sacrificing so we can hear the scoop! Love your discussions with Michael. Look forward to this daily.

I’m not certain if it’s the style of presentation in this podcast or it’s simply the subject, but I find myself struggling to pay attention. This is not the case for me with Michael Lewis’s other podcasts. Perhaps it’s because it’s not really hosted by him? Also, there’s way too much production in this podcast, meaning, unnecessary music, redundant introduction, etc. Finally, there’s a higher proportion of advertisement in this podcast. Overall, this is a disappointment compared to Michael Lewis's other podcasts.

I wish the jury deliberated longer! I’m going to miss LJ’s smart and insightful reporting along side Micheal’s insider insights.

Not worth listening and no, it’s not going to make me pay for Pushkin Plus when there’s an endless supply of other podcasts.

Michael might be well served to read the aftermath heaped upon Sally Jenkins from writing Every Second Counts, the Lance Armstrong autobiography. His SBF book portrays him as a sympathetic character, he’s nothing like that from the trial. This podcast is heavy on Michael touting his book, but short on court reporting. I read other accounts and wonder if the reporters were in the same room at times. Lidia Jean does the best she can, but seems uncomfortable at times. For instance, on the 10/28 episode, Michael asks her if she found Sam “interesting.” She gave an uncomfortable response, because interesting is the hook Michael uses to describe his characters and choose them as subjects over others. This podcast is really just a book pump lacking substance.

I’ve enjoyed Lewis’s books and previous podcasts, but his adoration of Sam is hard to stomach. Obviously Lewis thought the whole saga was worth writing a book about, but why he thought a podcast following the trial was a good idea is beyond me. He’s probably the only person fascinated by it. I will give him kudos for finally giving me a podcast to fall asleep to without feeling that I have to go back and start over.

ML got way too close to his subject. There is so much bias in favor of SBF, it is nauseating

I have listened to many, many white collar crime podcasts. I followed the story of Theranos from the very beginning. And as someone who is deeply familiar with this genre - don’t burn your time on this podcast. The main host/book author seems sympathetic to SBF in a way that hinders an objective reporting. For example, the host actually tried to say SBF borrowed and gambled customer money without permission which is not, apparently, the same thing as stealing. Which … interesting. Ultimately, this podcast sounds like a privileged man defending another privileged man as a quirky guy who just made some big mistakes. I’m not calling for SBF to be painted as some devil - he is a nuanced human like anyone else. But we live in a deeply hurting world where people are fighting to have basic rights, food, heating, safety. And there is something absolutely intolerable about hearing sympathetic arguments for a reckless billionaire whose companies destroyed the savings and livelihoods of so many people.

He has this weird fanboy persona and continually insists that the fact that “eventually” money may be recovered is somehow relevant in relation to the individuals were bankrupted and whose money was stolen. It is very, very, odd. I will not read his book after listening to him on him this podcast; I will not even borrow if from the library. I just finished Money Go Up, which I highly recommend.

Could have been far more interesting and substantive. The podcast interviewer is amateurish and I thought you could make a drinking game out of the many times she was answered with “good question.”

The reporter’s voice sounds like she is 16 years old and from the Valley. There is something called a voice for radio. It’s a real thing and is a talent. There is also voice training! The lawyer sounds just fine. I shall not expound on the gentleman’s speech impediment.